Citation Nr: 18101270
Decision Date: 05/03/18 Archive Date: 05/03/18
DOCKET NO. 18-13 760
DATE: May 3, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to February 1970.
Entitlement to service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
The Veteran contends that he suffers from numbness in the extremities, which he asserts is a manifestation of diabetic peripheral neuropathy related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
However, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d).
The May 2017 VA diabetic sensory motor peripheral neuropathy examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that he did not have a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy. A neurological examination revealed generally normal findings. Further, while pertinent treatment records show the Veteran’s doctors considered his complaints of numbness, they do not contain a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy, and neurological testing during treatment also revealed many normal results. See, e.g., December 2016 – December 2017 treatment notes from Kansas City VA Medical Center (noting the Veteran had normal sensation and circulation and was negative for numbness, tingling, or weakness). The Board finds there is no competent medical opinion evidence to the contrary relating to the period at issue in this case.
While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, the Board finds he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized knowledge and ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. As the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current disability of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, the claim must be denied.
MICHAEL LANE
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Duffy, Associate Counsel